I don't think so, TS. "I want my money back" is ordinary English. "I want my money in return to me" is odd. If you wanted to use something similar, you could use this version, which is ordinary but a little wordy: Peter, in a week or two, I want you to return the money to me.

[QUOTE"I want my money in return to me" is odd.[/QUOTE]Hi, owlman5,
Thanks for your reply.
Let me tell you that that definition, along with the other ones I've asked for and I will, are just definitions for the students to understand the word, not to be used in real life, that's what I always tell them. What do you think? Should I use it or I had better change the sentence?

Hello, TS. I see no advantage in giving strangely-worded definitions to your students. If you need to rephrase "I want my money back", why not use Boozer's version? It sounds just fine: I want my money returned to me.

Hello, TS. I see no advantage in giving strangely-worded definitions to your students. If you need to rephrase "I want my money back", why not use Boozer's version? It sounds just fine: I want my money returned to me.

I entirely agree with the motivation of the question. In teaching it is not only useful, but in my view vital, to be able to give an alternative expression which is both valid in itself and equivalent in meaning to the original.

In this case, 'I want my money returned to me' does that job.

'In return to me' is not idiomatic English and would not be clear.
However, it is not an inconceivable expression. I offer this thought in response to earlier comments.